<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: High Stakes Snow Anchors</title>
	<atom:link href="http://straightchuter.com/2008/10/high-stakes-snow-anchors/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://straightchuter.com/2008/10/high-stakes-snow-anchors/</link>
	<description>Backcountry Skiing &#38; Beyond by Andrew McLean</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:25:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ffelix</title>
		<link>http://straightchuter.com/2008/10/high-stakes-snow-anchors/comment-page-1/#comment-4135</link>
		<dc:creator>ffelix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:11:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.straightchuter.com/?p=1333#comment-4135</guid>
		<description>Broken link, try this one:
http://alpineclub.org.nz/system/files/Snow_Anchor_Report_2005.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Broken link, try this one:<br />
<a href="http://alpineclub.org.nz/system/files/Snow_Anchor_Report_2005.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://alpineclub.org.nz/system/files/Snow_Anchor_Report_2005.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bart</title>
		<link>http://straightchuter.com/2008/10/high-stakes-snow-anchors/comment-page-1/#comment-957</link>
		<dc:creator>Bart</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.straightchuter.com/?p=1333#comment-957</guid>
		<description>thanks for posting that article.  i was surprised as well that pounded in pickets can have that kind of strength.  after having seen the pounded in ones fail under normal loads in test situations, i&#039;ve been avoiding that configuration.  

what would be really interesting would be a study showing how big a bollard needs to be in the various types of hard snow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for posting that article.  i was surprised as well that pounded in pickets can have that kind of strength.  after having seen the pounded in ones fail under normal loads in test situations, i&#8217;ve been avoiding that configuration.  </p>
<p>what would be really interesting would be a study showing how big a bollard needs to be in the various types of hard snow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://straightchuter.com/2008/10/high-stakes-snow-anchors/comment-page-1/#comment-952</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:13:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.straightchuter.com/?p=1333#comment-952</guid>
		<description>Hi Jerimy,

I&#039;m not really sure why MSR changed their design..?  Perhaps to make it different (and better) than something you can crank out in your garage?  I think the T shape is probably much stronger than the V, and also offers more clip in options than the V.

I thought the study was very interesting, especially how some of the orientations (pounded in and clipped off) were much stronger than I would have expected.  Still, if I&#039;m looking for ultra beef, there is nothing like burying a stake in the T-stake configuration for a bomber anchor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jerimy,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not really sure why MSR changed their design..?  Perhaps to make it different (and better) than something you can crank out in your garage?  I think the T shape is probably much stronger than the V, and also offers more clip in options than the V.</p>
<p>I thought the study was very interesting, especially how some of the orientations (pounded in and clipped off) were much stronger than I would have expected.  Still, if I&#8217;m looking for ultra beef, there is nothing like burying a stake in the T-stake configuration for a bomber anchor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jerimy</title>
		<link>http://straightchuter.com/2008/10/high-stakes-snow-anchors/comment-page-1/#comment-951</link>
		<dc:creator>jerimy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.straightchuter.com/?p=1333#comment-951</guid>
		<description>Why did MSR change their pickets from the V shape, as shown in the study, to a T style?  It seems like with a V shape you would have more surface area in contact with the snow, but the force is not normal to either edge.  With the T shape, the entire surface area is perpendicular to the applied force.  The T also seems to be superior  for the case when the force is not perfectly perpendicular to the picket, because the surface area would be more than that of an off-center V.  It would be interesting to know if this study brought about a change in the design of the pickets.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why did MSR change their pickets from the V shape, as shown in the study, to a T style?  It seems like with a V shape you would have more surface area in contact with the snow, but the force is not normal to either edge.  With the T shape, the entire surface area is perpendicular to the applied force.  The T also seems to be superior  for the case when the force is not perfectly perpendicular to the picket, because the surface area would be more than that of an off-center V.  It would be interesting to know if this study brought about a change in the design of the pickets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
